Hi Akash,
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:04:17PM +0530, Akash Asthana wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
>
> > > static int geni_se_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > {
> > > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > @@ -845,6 +868,34 @@ static int geni_se_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > }
> > > }
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SERIAL_EARLYCON
> > > + wrapper->to_core.path = devm_of_icc_get(dev, "qup-core");
> > > + if (IS_ERR(wrapper->to_core.path))
> > > + return PTR_ERR(wrapper->to_core.path);
> > > + /*
> > > + * Put minmal BW request on core clocks on behalf of early console.
> > > + * The vote will be removed earlycon exit function.
> > > + *
> > > + * Note: We are putting vote on each QUP wrapper instead only to which
> > > + * earlycon is connected because QUP core clock of different wrapper
> > > + * share same voltage domain. If core1 is put to 0, then core2 will
> > > + * also run at 0, if not voted. Default ICC vote will be removed ASA
> > > + * we touch any of the core clock.
> > > + * core1 = core2 = max(core1, core2)
> > > + */
> > I don't really understand this part. According to the comment if we vote
> > (let's say) for core2 but not for core1 then:
> >
> > core1: 0
> > core2: GENI_DEFAULT_BW
> >
> > core1 = core2 = max(core1, core2)
> > or
> > core1 = core2 = max(0, GENI_DEFAULT_BW)
> >
> > hence
> >
> > core1 = core2 = GENI_DEFAULT_BW
> >
> > What am I missing, why is it necessary to vote for both/all?
> say core1 is for earlycon usecase
>
> There is common switch to control both the QUP core clock. I guess most
> appropriate description would be switch = max(vote_on_core1,
> vote_on_core2) + default_vote.
>
> During early bootup, vote_on_core1 = 0, vote_on_core2 = 0;
>
> As earlycon was working even without voting it's core need because there was
> some default vote present on the core switch by ICC during bootup.
>
> So if any child(say SPI) of other QUP wrapper resumed and suspended before
> earlycon wrapper comes up. This will make core clock to run at zero and will
> cause NOC issue because vote_on_core1 = 0, vote_on_core2 = 0; and it seems
> default votes from core switch is removed ASA it's voted on any core.
Thanks for the explication!
You are probably totally right, but for some reason my brain still resists
to get it ...
With the above my current interpretation is (assuming earlycon only votes on
core1):
core1 core2 default switch
early boot 0 0 1 1
SPI resume (core2) 0 1 0 1
SPI suspend (core2) 0 0 0 0
earlycon init 1 0 0 1
What is wrong in the above table?
Thanks for bearing with me :)
Matthias
